9/11 even real pilots couldn't do it

I just posted a video that shows an a actual pilot(that means he knows what he's talking about)that flew the actual planes from 9/11.That pilot backs
up Tiffani's word.

Why do you keep asking for proof even though it's in front of you?

Because every time we here him say "Pulling 5 6 7 Gs" all we can do is laugh. It makes it hard to take his opinion seriously.
If he made a new video saying "Whoops, SORRY, I should of said less than 2 Gs" then I would have some respect for him.
Until then he is just another one of many PFT G force jokes.

We love it when Rob and the PFT start talking Gs. Maybe Tiffany knows some G force jokes. I notice Tiffany is just saying "pulling Gs" and not
sticking her neck out by putting a number to it.

Tiffany is definitely a lot wiser than Rob.

Based on data provided by the NTSB, Arlington Topography and obstacles, more than 10 G's is required.

I was just down by the ole' Pentagon this morning. Lookin' at the "topography" and such, gettin' the lay o' the land, as it were....

Gee....imagine this? From my window on the eighth floor of the Marriott Residence Inn, there on Army/Navy Drive, is a clear view to the West, and a
good angle on the side of the Pentagon that was hit by AAL 77.

What's more, it's easy to see just HOW the terrain actually lays, the angles, the elevations....you can "eyeball" it, pretty much. Don't need
none o'that made-up maths from the PfT "crew"....and their pardners, the CIT.

Goin' down, to the ground level, even BETTER way to see how the land lays, and flows....no need for no "10-G" pull, no sirree Bob! (Or...no sirree
Rob!)

Why is there no mention of ground effect when they are "plotting" their g load diagram, also the power to weight ratios at this level and drag
resistance at ground level, this all has an effect on aircraft performance and so g loading wouldn't be so hard with the cushion effect, some pilots
these guys must be.

The implication of what you're saying Tiff, is that the planes were reinforced in some way. (That's leaving aside NPt which I suspect even you might
baulk at).

Why would they do this?

I suspect your answer will be that you don't know, but that "it's just another thing that shows the OS isn't right..." But I'm interested in the
implications of what you suggest. Care to look into those?

dude she has know idea beyond what google says as do most of these made up truthers but just give up they are not rational and will never get
it....

the ideas they come up with have no conclusions and this conspiracy is the product of under educated society projecting other anger into this terrible
day and now WAR! it truly is sad the moentum it has gathered o well for common sense they have there list of WITNESSES or whomever???? just more
stupid people who are very confused .

What about Joseph Kieth?A retired aerospace engineer who designed the "shaker system" for Boeing?

"The air is so thick that when the engine max the rotation of the turbine the air..they can't suck the air in and the thing starts acting like a
brake(which would SLOW it down)the plane maxes out the specs on the plane...the power plant will max out at 700 feet at 330 mph..in other words they
can't fly that fast..AND the plane will begin to shake itself apart at 220 mph at that altitude...so if the plane was flying at that altitude it
would have shook itself apart before it hit the building"-Joseph Kieth

I actually had to listen, just to be sure you typed this verbatim, from what he said:

...AND the plane will begin to shake itself apart at 220 mph at that altitude...

You did!! That is EXACTLY what he said.

And, well...how can I say this gently? Well I can't. UNLESS he misspoke....because, if he MEANT that, then (even 'Tiffany' will have to agree) he
is a NUTTER!

Let's recap what he alleged: Based on how it was phrased, it appears that this so-called "expert" thinks that a Boeing 767 in level flight, at an
altitude somewhere between 700 and 1,000 feet AGL, will "begin to shake itself apart at 220 MPH". Did I get the gist correct?

Feel free to tell me if not....

Just to clarify....he said "MPH"....to my mind, I read that as "Statute" miles per hour. We use knots, or "Nautical" miles per hour in
aviation.

Converting statute to nautical, or "MPH" to knots, we get 191 KNOTS!

Folks....191 knots is BELOW the "clean wing" airspeed for both the 757 and 767....UNLESS nearly completely empty, and minium fuel (or, very low
total gross weight).

Typically, some airlines (mine) use "canned" speeds, for maneuvering references....they are also calculated by the FMS. In the 757, 210 knots is
typically the "clean minimum maneuvering" --- or, the speed below which we will have to extend the slats and flaps.

I am here to tell you (and any of you who have FLOWN recently, and survived it) that NONE of my airplanes ever began to "shake apart" at those
airspeeds....nor even, if he meant 220 knots either.

IN FACT, from takeoff up to 10,000 feet, on the climb out, we accelerate to 250 knots!!! After the flats/slats are cleaned up (retracted) on
schedule, after takeoff. Above 10,000, then the climb speed depends...it IS higher...and will vary based on the VNAV mode (if used), ATC restrictions
(if imposed) or personal preferences....airplanes climb good at between 290 and 310 knots.

On descents....up above 10,000 I've often, many many times, had it up to the "barber pole" (that's 'VMO'). In International waters, OUTSIDE
the 12-mile limit from the shore....there IS NO SPEED 'LIMIT' below 10,000 feet, as there is in most jurisdictions overland.

Airplane does just fine, at...oh, 2,000 feet and 310 knots. Just fine, thank you very much.

I think this guy (he does sound a bit long in the tooth?) should be put out to pasture, if not already.

These guys are always railing people for the slightest speculation, yet have no problem harassing you as if they know beyond a shadow of a doubt that
you're a man. Even when police have suspicions they act with more restraint than that.

I have to be honest, I don't know who is behind any of these posts, and I don't care to tell you all that I don't take anything any of you say
about yourselves for granted, weedwhacker being a pilot included. I just put up with it for the sake of argument.

But I think the real problem is none of these guys want to even entertain the thought that they're making complete fools of themselves before a chick
that looks like nothing they'll be bagging any time soon.

I've read that some of the velocity limitations below 10,000 feet are related to the fact that the windshields on the planes are not rated for bird
strikes over a certain speed. So its not that the plane will shake apart because it is going at 400 mph at 700 feet, but because if a bird were to
strike the windshield at that speed then it would break and, of course, bird strikes are much less likely above 10,000.

Do you think an aircraft that has exceeded it's Vmo by 150 will be easy to control?

Nope. Its something only a suicidal maniac would risk. "Easy" is a very poorly defined word and very relative.

Do you feel it will be stable?

Nope. See above. "Stable" is poorly defined and relative.

Can you find us one aircraft which is positively identified to have exceeded it's Vmo by 150 knots and was stable/controllable?

Nope. Unlike you, we do not have access to the flight records of all the flights of all aircraft in human history - when are you going to share that
database?

Do you think it is impossible to plot a V-G diagram if the V-speeds are known?

Yes. The designer has to give you the definition for those curves, unique to each plane design and actually would be unique to every single aircraft
as reason dictates that no two craft, regardless of effort, are exactly the same.

Do you feel the above V-G diagram does not represent the V Speeds as set by Boeing for the 767? If so, which ones?

Nope. All of the them.

Do you know the definition of Vra/Va, Vmo, Vd? What are they for the 767?

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
The implication of what you're saying Tiff, is that the planes were reinforced in some way. (That's leaving aside NPt which I suspect even you might
baulk at).

Why would they do this?

I suspect your answer will be that you don't know, but that "it's just another thing that shows the OS isn't right..." But I'm interested in the
implications of what you suggest. Care to look into those?

Actually, the airspeed limit below 10,000 is for ATC's benefit, mostly...more traffic, denser concentrations, and just makes it easier for
controllers to handle. They often slow us down even more, when their airspace/workload gets really busy.

Modern windshields are quite tough....electrically heated at all times (unless there is a fault, and it fails for some reason). When heated, they are
a bit "flexible", and more resiliant. (One or more layers sandwiched in are plastic, and are part of the heat conductive elements).

Don't have the need to look it up, usually...except my personal exeperience, in a DC-10 (many years back) saw some arcing, in the electrical
connections @ the window corner. Turned off power to that _...we were at altitude, and the thermal shock meant that a few seconds later ---
'THWACK!' ---- one pane (sandwiched) of glass shattered.

The limitations in the book said only to limit speed to 250 knots, below 10,000 feet! Which is SOP, anyway, in controlled airspace. (Implication, of
course, was that when window heat is operating normally there is NO speed restriction, aerodynamically, except of course the published VMO).

BTW...while it isn't going to happen in US airspace, in many other parts of the World one may ask ATC for variance, and they can grant requests to
accelerate above 250 knots, even below 10,000.

OH....and one more thing about the "250 below 10,000" rule, I keep forgetting to mention: SOME larger, heavier airplanes (B-747, B-777, A-340,
A-380...etc) will often, when heavily loaded by so heavy that their MINIMUM clean airspeed is above 250 knots! The rules allow for
that....the requirement is 250 knots, or 'minimum required' for safe operation with flaps/slats retracted.

Do you think an aircraft that has exceeded it's Vmo by 150 will be easy to control?

Nope. Its something only a suicidal maniac would risk. "Easy" is a very poorly defined word and very relative.

Do you feel it will be stable?

Nope. See above. "Stable" is poorly defined and relative.

"Easy to control" and "Stable" go hand in hand as every student pilot learns from day 1.

But I thank you for being honest and at least trying to answer the questions. It's more than can be said of your cohorts.

You are correct, aircraft which exceed their Vmo are not "easy to control", nor "stable". This is why limits are set based on flight and wind
tunnel tests and why so many highly experienced Airline Capts and a NASA Engineer who designs high performance flight control systems put their names
on their claims that such an aircraft would be impossible to control, and more speak out after becoming informed, as did the 5 or 6 Pilot/ATS'ers in
this thread -

Do you think it is impossible to plot a V-G diagram if the V-speeds are known?

Yes. The designer has to give you the definition for those curves, unique to each plane design and actually would be unique to every single aircraft
as reason dictates that no two craft, regardless of effort, are exactly the same.

Do you feel the above V-G diagram does not represent the V Speeds as set by Boeing for the 767? If so, which ones?

Nope. All of the them.

Do you know the definition of Vra/Va, Vmo, Vd? What are they for the 767?

You don't know - do you?

Thank you for once again demonstrating you have less knowledge than a student pilot.

The Above Top Secret Web site is a wholly owned social content community of The Above Network, LLC.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.